About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
that they didn't change anything that the intelligence report went to susan rice other than what you named the consulate or dip the maic facility. what do you make of that? >> well, what is the issue that has been raised as a result of that? i think we all know the intelligence community had created the talking points that did come out about the incident that occurred. the purpose is to make sure that any information or that they would give to the media would not be classified. i think that's how a lot of these issues with the talking points started and the issue that's been raised in the last couple of days has been the issue of having al qaeda taken out of the talking points and putting extremists in there. my answer to that is that the analysts who would have made those different changes and you have the intelligence committee that is analyzed and they give it to the administration or us. what happened in that situation is there are some who have said that by taking the word al qaeda out and putting extremist that changed the content. i don't see it that way. i think extremist covers a
points used by susan rice and in the classified talking points which had a completely different set of conclusions in terms of who did this, when they did it, how they did it. so i think we're left with more confusion, if, in fact, the article by eric schmidt in "the new york times" is correct it would indicate that these unclassified talking points had a specific purpose to deceive the american people, but more importantly to deceive al qaeda so that they could continue to monitor their communications. so i think there are still a lot of questions out there, and i'm not sure the last couple of days have clarified much. >> fascinating. let me turn to you nick, depending again when you talk to, there you have a top general saying it's gotten a lot muddier. it's just the danger when you have the need to keep stuff classified because you're going off to certain groups who may have done this and sending people off to ambassador rice to >> in some ways, mark is right it has gotten muddier. at the end of the day while it is clear that security is inadequate in benghazi and while it's clea
will listen to what the president has to say about the argument over susan rice. >> if senator graham and senator mccain want to go after somebody, they should go after me, and i'm happy to have that discussion, but for them to gof a u.n. ambassador who had nothing to do with benghazi and simply making a prez sentation information she had receive and to besmirch her reputation is outrageo outrageous. >> if the president thinks that we are pick on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> the benghazi battle turning into a hot issue. i will talk to one of the senators taking the president to task, kelly ayotte. but we will begin with the latest on the petraeus investigation. we are joined by suzanne, welcome back. >> thank you, piers. always nice to be here. >> here is my overview on the key characters. we now know who the fbi agent was who began this whole investigation, fredrick w. hu hmm fri who is a glorous name and he is through friends and colleagues of clearing himself of anything wrong, is that right? >> yes, a couple of sources who have come out
first testified and briefed capitol hill and apparently after ambassador susan rice made those comments. >> that's why it's so significant, it also came after ambassador rice's appearance on the sunday shows, where she is now being grilled by john mccain and others. i'm talking to him in a few minutes. so it's very significant i think what general petraeus believed at the time. it does beg a belief, really, why would ambassador rice go on national television, having had a briefing we believe from the cia, which turned out to be flawed if the director of the cia right away knew this was an al qaeda affiliated group? >> yeah, you know, it's washington, isn't it. i mean, you know, the theory, what petraeus is expected to talk about is he had his talking points. he got them declassified, approved to go out there in public. when ambassador rice started talking from her talking points, this included other information that wasn't exactly what the cia thought might be really going on. i think some members of capitol hill have brought it down to this point, was the obama administration incredibl
by the president. >> and in regards to susan rice, it was clear that she had nothing to do with the benghazi, and her only role was to go to the "meet the press" and repeat what she had been told by the intelligent services, and do you accept that part of the defense? >> piers, i think it begs the question. why would you go on every major sunday show, because you have tof affirmatively put yourself out there if you had nothing to do with it. you know you have a certain responsibility and you have to be able to tell the american people the truth, and i think that there are serious questions about it. we know that there was e-mails sent from the state department within hours to the white house identifying that ansar al sharia had claimed responsibility, a terrorist group, and for the administration to put her out there and also in her role as a u.n. ambassador, why are you putting me out there versus the secretary of state or the cia or even leon panetta. >> does this tell you it is cover-up or conspiracy? are we talking about a major cover-up that we are defeating al qaeda or simply just pret
rice are the u.n. ambassador. very interesting that today, president obama says, you know, susan rice had nothing to do with benghazi, i don't know what she was doing on the show. >> didn't she make her safe key player or a person put up by the administration to launch the defense. she could have said, we believe there are a number of possible theory sneers she didn't take that option. >> she was a good soldier did what the administration told her to do. she read the talking points. she had more -- >> did she act in good faith, do you think? >> i can't get inside her brain. i don't -- i think that she was repeating the intelligence and what the white house told her to say. what she was saying is similar to what everyone in the white house and the state department was saying at the time. so, i don't think that she was doing anything other than what she had been instructed to same the big question not whether this was one of the prominent theories, it was all a spontaneous protest from the anti-muslim video, it was, obviously, one of the prominent theories but on september 14th, the whi
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)